Charles E Matthews1, Sarah Kozey Keadle2, Richard P Troiano3, Lisa Kahle4, Annemarie Koster5, Robert Brychta6, Dane Van Domelen7, Paolo Caserotti7, Kong Y Chen6, Tamara B Harris8, David Berrigan9. 1. Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, Nutritional Epidemiology Branch, charles.matthews2@nih.gov. 2. Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, Nutritional Epidemiology Branch. 3. Epidemiology and Genomics Research Program, and. 4. Information Management Services Inc., Silver Spring, MD. 5. Care and Public Health Research Institute School for Public Health and Primary Care, Department of Social Medicine, Maastricht University, Maastricht, Netherlands. 6. National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, Diabetes, Endocrinology, and Obesity Branch, Bethesda, MD. 7. Institute of Sports Science and Clinical Biomechanics, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark. 8. National Institute on Aging, Intramural Research Program, Laboratory of Epidemiology, Demography, and Biometry, Bethesda, MD. 9. Behavioral Research Program, Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Moderate-to-vigorous-intensity physical activity is recommended to maintain and improve health, but the mortality benefits of light activity and risk for sedentary time remain uncertain. OBJECTIVES: Using accelerometer-based measures, we 1) described the mortality dose-response for sedentary time and light- and moderate-to-vigorous-intensity activity using restricted cubic splines, and 2) estimated the mortality benefits associated with replacing sedentary time with physical activity, accounting for total activity. DESIGN: US adults (n = 4840) from NHANES (2003-2006) wore an accelerometer for ≤7 d and were followed prospectively for mortality. Proportional hazards models were used to estimate adjusted HRs and 95% CIs for mortality associations with time spent sedentary and in light- and moderate-to-vigorous-intensity physical activity. Splines were used to graphically present behavior-mortality relation. Isotemporal models estimated replacement associations for sedentary time, and separate models were fit for low- (<5.8 h total activity/d) and high-active participants to account for nonlinear associations. RESULTS: Over a mean of 6.6 y, 700 deaths occurred. Compared with less-sedentary adults (6 sedentary h/d), those who spent 10 sedentary h/d had 29% greater risk (HR: 1.29; 95% CI: 1.1, 1.5). Compared with those who did less light activity (3 h/d), those who did 5 h of light activity/d had 23% lower risk (HR: 0.77; 95% CI: 0.6, 1.0). There was no association with mortality for sedentary time or light or moderate-to-vigorous activity in highly active adults. In less-active adults, replacing 1 h of sedentary time with either light- or moderate-to-vigorous-intensity activity was associated with 18% and 42% lower mortality, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Health promotion efforts for physical activity have mostly focused on moderate-to-vigorous activity. However, our findings derived from accelerometer-based measurements suggest that increasing light-intensity activity and reducing sedentary time are also important, particularly for inactive adults.
BACKGROUND: Moderate-to-vigorous-intensity physical activity is recommended to maintain and improve health, but the mortality benefits of light activity and risk for sedentary time remain uncertain. OBJECTIVES: Using accelerometer-based measures, we 1) described the mortality dose-response for sedentary time and light- and moderate-to-vigorous-intensity activity using restricted cubic splines, and 2) estimated the mortality benefits associated with replacing sedentary time with physical activity, accounting for total activity. DESIGN: US adults (n = 4840) from NHANES (2003-2006) wore an accelerometer for ≤7 d and were followed prospectively for mortality. Proportional hazards models were used to estimate adjusted HRs and 95% CIs for mortality associations with time spent sedentary and in light- and moderate-to-vigorous-intensity physical activity. Splines were used to graphically present behavior-mortality relation. Isotemporal models estimated replacement associations for sedentary time, and separate models were fit for low- (<5.8 h total activity/d) and high-active participants to account for nonlinear associations. RESULTS: Over a mean of 6.6 y, 700 deaths occurred. Compared with less-sedentary adults (6 sedentary h/d), those who spent 10 sedentary h/d had 29% greater risk (HR: 1.29; 95% CI: 1.1, 1.5). Compared with those who did less light activity (3 h/d), those who did 5 h of light activity/d had 23% lower risk (HR: 0.77; 95% CI: 0.6, 1.0). There was no association with mortality for sedentary time or light or moderate-to-vigorous activity in highly active adults. In less-active adults, replacing 1 h of sedentary time with either light- or moderate-to-vigorous-intensity activity was associated with 18% and 42% lower mortality, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Health promotion efforts for physical activity have mostly focused on moderate-to-vigorous activity. However, our findings derived from accelerometer-based measurements suggest that increasing light-intensity activity and reducing sedentary time are also important, particularly for inactive adults.
Authors: Hannah Arem; Steven C Moore; Alpa Patel; Patricia Hartge; Amy Berrington de Gonzalez; Kala Visvanathan; Peter T Campbell; Michal Freedman; Elisabete Weiderpass; Hans Olov Adami; Martha S Linet; I-Min Lee; Charles E Matthews Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2015-06 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Sarah Kozey Keadle; Kate Lyden; John Staudenmayer; Amanda Hickey; Richard Viskochil; Barry Braun; Patty S Freedson Journal: Appl Physiol Nutr Metab Date: 2014-01-07 Impact factor: 2.665
Authors: Ezra I Fishman; Jeremy A Steeves; Vadim Zipunnikov; Annemarie Koster; David Berrigan; Tamara A Harris; Rachel Murphy Journal: Med Sci Sports Exerc Date: 2016-07 Impact factor: 5.411
Authors: I-Min Lee; Eric J Shiroma; Felipe Lobelo; Pekka Puska; Steven N Blair; Peter T Katzmarzyk Journal: Lancet Date: 2012-07-21 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Annemarie Koster; Paolo Caserotti; Kushang V Patel; Charles E Matthews; David Berrigan; Dane R Van Domelen; Robert J Brychta; Kong Y Chen; Tamara B Harris Journal: PLoS One Date: 2012-06-13 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Nathan P De Jong; Corey A Rynders; David A Goldstrohm; Zhaoxing Pan; Andrew H Lange; Carlos Mendez; Edward L Melanson; Daniel H Bessesen; Audrey Bergouignan Journal: J Appl Physiol (1985) Date: 2019-01-10
Authors: Sarah Kozey Keadle; Eli S Kravitz; Charles E Matthews; Marilyn Tseng; Raymond J Carroll Journal: Med Sci Sports Exerc Date: 2019-08 Impact factor: 5.411
Authors: Mary E Rosenberger; Janet E Fulton; Matthew P Buman; Richard P Troiano; Michael A Grandner; David M Buchner; William L Haskell Journal: Med Sci Sports Exerc Date: 2019-03 Impact factor: 5.411
Authors: Michael J LaMonte; David M Buchner; Eileen Rillamas-Sun; Chongzhi Di; Kelley R Evenson; John Bellettiere; Cora E Lewis; I-Min Lee; Lesly F Tinker; Rebecca Seguin; Oleg Zaslovsky; Charles B Eaton; Marcia L Stefanick; Andrea Z LaCroix Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2017-11-16 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Sarah K Keadle; David E Conroy; Matthew P Buman; David W Dunstan; Charles E Matthews Journal: Med Sci Sports Exerc Date: 2017-08 Impact factor: 5.411
Authors: Somdat Mahabir; Walter C Willett; Christine M Friedenreich; Gabriel Y Lai; Carol J Boushey; Charles E Matthews; Rashmi Sinha; Graham A Colditz; Joseph A Rothwell; Jill Reedy; Alpa V Patel; Michael F Leitzmann; Gary E Fraser; Sharon Ross; Stephen D Hursting; Christian C Abnet; Lawrence H Kushi; Philip R Taylor; Ross L Prentice Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2017-12-18 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: John Bellettiere; Genevieve N Healy; Michael J LaMonte; Jacqueline Kerr; Kelly R Evenson; Eileen Rillamas-Sun; Chongzhi Di; David M Buchner; Melbourne F Hovell; Andrea Z LaCroix Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2019-02-15 Impact factor: 6.053